User Reviews

In 1990, Joel Schumacher directed the unforgettable "Flatliners", a original horror film with Kiefer Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts., William Baldwin and Oliver Platt. The remake directed by Danish director Niels Arden Oplev has nothing new in he story. The cast is weaker with the awful and unexpressive Kiersey Clemons in one of the lead roles and the screenplay is corny. The cameo of Kiefer Sutherland is probably the greatest joke in this forgettable and unnecessary remake. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): Not Available

The movies have depicted the hereafter in varied ways over the years. From the bleached white warehouses of Powell and Pressburger's "A Matter of Life and Death" in 1946 and Warren Beatty's "Heaven Can Wait" in 1978 to – for me – the peak of the game: Vincent Ward's mawkish but gorgeously rendered oil-paint version of heaven in 1998's "What Dreams May Come". Joel Schmacher's 1990's "Flatliners" saw a set of "brat pack" movie names of the day (including Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts, William Baldwin and Kiefer Sutherland) as experimenting trainee doctors, cheating death to experience the afterlife and getting more than they bargained for. The depictions of the afterlife were unmemorable: in that I don't remember them much! (I think there was some sort of spooky tree involved, but that's about it!)

But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn't a little bit intrigued by the question of "what's beyond"? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property's reputation.

In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page ("Inception") who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in "Rogue One" but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as "the sexy one"; James Norton ("War and Peace") as "the posh boy" and Kiersey Clemons as the "cute but repressed one", all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.

Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he's not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev ("The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo") thinking?

In terms of the story, it's pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi's original, with Ben Ripley ("Source Code") adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of "It": for horror to work well it need to obey some decent 'rules of physics' and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the "action" is sensibly based inside the character's heads) there are the occasional linkages to the 'real world' that generate a "WTF???" response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.

Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie 'meh'. It's certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn't completely bored for the two hours. But I won't remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a "Black Adder" quote, it's all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.

(For the graphical version of this review, please visit bob-the-movie- man.com. Thanks.)

The first half of this movie was great - the premise was great, and the diverse cast set it apart from other "afterlife" type films. However, moving into the second half, things got very muddled. It seems that the director didn't know exactly which direction to go in, so he went in all of them. It was very anti-climatic, and also relied on cheap jump- scares to drive the film. Quite disappointing as it had great potential.

It's just depressing for a movie lover like me to see a film like Joel Schumacher's 1990 Flatliners remade. Why? Can anyone come out with something we haven't seen before or at least from a fresh new POV. Somebody told me that my reaction is "generational" - I fear that's true. It makes me feel really old. I almost walked out of Mother!, the other day - something I've never done - because I felt treated like a moron. To steal from Robert Polanski to do what, what? Here is even worse. They're stealing from Joel Schumacher without having any of the...what was it that the 1990 had that this one hasn't? Well let's say that the first one wasn't a remake. Where are the mavericks? The new ones. The ones I love are in their 70's or gone. I do apologize I'm just venting my frustration. Thank you for indulging me.

Hear me out: The film wasn't the best thing ever and quite predictable, but it was watchable and I have definitely seen worse. Having never watching the original, i actually didn't know it was a 'horror' so that was a surprise.

I love Ellen Page and her acting continued excellent in this movie.

If you're still on the fence about watching it, just watch it once and ignore the reviews like I did and I heavily base my watches on reviews. I quite enjoyed it even though I probably won't watch it again.. it was still worth a try.

Terrible. Acting was OK but bordered on comical. Not scary at all and second part was a bit loose.

Could have been darker with more urgency but flapped around quite a bit. The ending was boring as hell and didn't seem to convey anything.

Should've got to see Kingsman instead.

I read reviews on this movie and nearly did not watch it as some were so bad. But I thought I would give it a go as its peoples opinion.

First off it had some great touches like Kiefer Sutherland being in there like the fist movie but this time not one of the main characters but one of the main Characters did use his line "Its a good day to die" which was a nice touch to

On the whole the movie was just what I expected and very similar to the first movie so if you have seen that one then you will like this. I have no idea what all the hate was about and I actually waited for it to go down hill halfway through as some said but it never did and built up the tension nicely and with a nice clear ending and no silly cheap shock gimmicks at the end like some movies like this love doing these days.

Give it a go and don't believe the reviews on here. Try for yourself you might just enjoy it as I did

When it comes to remaking a movie, I'm all for it if it means that they're going to try and make a better movie out of something that wasn't all that impressive to begin with. That being said, if the original film was already solid or decently received by both audiences and critics, then why bother? Flatliners was a film that was released back in 1990, and I quite enjoy that film, even though the overall product has many issues of its own. I didn't see the reason for a remake, but I could see potential in improving it, so I was open-minded. Sadly, Flatliners is one of the worst films I've seen all year. Taking a solid premise and putting a supernatural spin on it for absolutely no apparent reason, bothered me to no end. Here is why Flatliners fails as both a remake and as an original piece to be shown to a new audience.

The idea of doctors being capable of flatlining people and bringing them back to life, being able to have conversations about what death is like and going through hallucinations as a side effect is quite interesting; However, this version of the film becomes a supernatural thriller by the time it reaches its third act, making for a very confusing film, due to the fact that there is clearly no physical entity that could ever accomplish these things. This version of this concept just strips away anything that was exciting or intriguing about the original film. Not to compare and contrast, but idea of Flatliners definitely benefits from a more subdued and subtle approach to things.

What bothered me was the fact that the majority of the cast seemed capable of being subdued, but the film's screenplay was such a mess that I found myself thinking these actors/actresses deserved better material. In particular, Diego Luna and Ellen Page were actually very good in their respective roles, making for a few emotionally resonant moments, even though the lines they were given were pretty lame. Quite honestly, with a better script, a title change, and a bit of originality, this cast could've worked in a much better movie.

Even though the performances are all decent, the fact that this cast was a bunch of youngsters actually annoyed me. The original film was about a group of experienced doctors who had a neat idea, and were much more capable of being able to bring each other back to life. This time around, it's a group of students who have just enough knowledge in maybe being able to bring each other back. This notion alone was a scripting mistake, because it just becomes a story about naive young students who become obsessed with someone's experiment. I found no attachment to any of these characters and none of them really had a reason for wanting to die (with the exception of one or two without spoiling anything), which left me not caring from frame one.

In the end, this film benefits from a strong enough cast (for the most part) and the concept itself is very interesting, but all you have to do is watch the original to see how it should be done. This film tries too many new things, and quite frankly fails at pretty much all of them. Having terrible dialogue, an unnecessary supernatural turn of events, and a climax that turns into a straight up horror flick, I found myself not caring what the outcome for each of the characters would be. The only thing redeemable about this film is the premise itself, which has been done better in the past, so I can't recommend this movie to anyone, but I do recommend checking out the original Flatliners if you haven't seen it yet.

When it comes to its great effects and spooky ambiance, Flatliners has a lot of style, but when it comes to its narrative, the film is significantly lacking in substance. As a fan of the original, alongside being an admirer of Ellen Page, I was really looking forward to this film, though by the end, left the cinema disappointed.

Flatliners begins with Courtney (Page) experiencing a tragic loss. Nine years later, she is a medical student, trying to convince her colleagues to help with an experiment. Later in the film both events are connected, though significantly more depth was required.

As one can guess, Courtney's experiment involves her death, in an attempt to record what happens to the brain after a person flat-lines. Her friends Jamie (James Norton) and Sophia (the beautiful Kiersey Clemons), originally discouraged with her intentions, quickly become involved, as do Ray (Diego Luna) and Marlo (Nina Dobrev) when things don't go according to plan.

When characters travel to the other side, the use of light, sound and motion are used wonderfully to create a fantastic experience, the world beyond often visualised as been very beautiful, the music also adding to the magic of the occasion. After returning from their near-death experiences, characters are miraculously gifted with greater intellect, an idea that is never elaborated upon. Moreover, despite the characters been perceived as studious and intelligent, unlike the characters in The Taking of Deborah Logan, rarely do the leads in Flatliners attempt to use science, or their training, to find a solution to the problems they face, instead behaving much like the stereotypes found in other genre films.

Though the always entertaining Kiefer Sutherland (who deserved a much larger role) has a cameo, don't mistake this as a sequel – this feature is in fact a remake, though it is disappointing we didn't get to see Sutherland's Nelson again after all these years.

Much like in the original, the characters begin to realise the consequences of travelling to the other side. It is during these moments, when the film fully embraces its dark material, that Flatliners is at its best. The music adds to the already well developed spooky atmosphere, and the performances of the cast further heighten the sense of dread. Though occasionally predictable, the feature has its share of unexpected scares, the chase sequences being very gripping.

Like the original, characters find themselves pursued by their 'sins', though the secrets the characters have been harbouring are rarely provided the required depth. Despite flirting briefly with the supernatural, the film pulls on this string only once, which was quite disappointing, the film rarely attempting to stray from the original. Though the original shone a flashlight on bullying, racism, sexism and betrayal, the remake is often centred around the competitiveness of the medical profession, which joins each of the characters together.

As the film progresses, the confrontation between the characters and their 'sins' becomes progressively worse, been far more malicious than what was experienced in the original. Though the film appears to be set for an exciting climax, it is here that the movie appears to run out of steam, and instead rushes towards a happy ending that does not do the film justice.

Flatliners is never boring, capturing the fun lives of the up and coming professionals of tomorrow, and the horror of when things go terribly wrong. The latter however is not given the depth it deserves, and coupled with its weak conclusion, the richness of the films potential goes largely untouched.

Personally liked the 1990 'Flatliners'. It wasn't perfect, but it was stylish, fun and with some chills, making the most of a concept that at the time was very different. It also strikes me as one of Joel Schumacher's most underrated films and an example of not all Schumacher's films being overblown camp.

Immediately had doubts hearing there was a remake, 'Flatliners' was one of those films that didn't need a remake in any shape or form. However, the cast didn't seem too bad on paper (Ellen Page and Diego Luna have shown performances that were at least capable in the past), it was written by Ben Ripley (who did some fine work for 'Source Code') and it was directed by Niels Arden Oplev of the excellent Swedish 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' fame. So actually, despite questioning the point, there was hope.

Sadly, 'Flatliners' (2017) failed to live up to any of its potential that it could have potentially had with the right execution. Questioned the point of it before watching it when it first came out last Friday, after seeing it to me it has to be one of the most pointless and dead on arrival remakes since 'The Wicker Man'. The concept of the original 'Flatliners' unlike any other, that's not the case anymore (having actually starting to wear well before this came out, being executed for example to not particularly good effect in an episode of 'Diagnosis Murder') and it feels very stale here, so no despite how appetising it appears in the summary it's hard to put "great premise" as a strength.

The cast do their best, the actors are the thing that come off least badly. That's not saying much at all (and it's only being said because everything else is done worse) because most of them still give very uninspired one-note performances. The most dedicated of the lot is Diego Luna, he makes a real effort to keep things together, even when things seem unsalvageable, and ends up being the best, and perhaps only good, thing about the film. The normally very capable Ellen Page plays her character in far too repressed a way, and the rest of the cast are either too histrionic or robotic. Kiefer Sutherland's cameo was even more unnecessary than the film itself.

With that being said, that the acting is not great is not the fault of the actors. They do have everything else in 'Flatliners' fighting them every step of the way. The characters are ones we learn little about, other than very over-familiar dilemmas and past traumas that are mentioned but not really expanded upon (certainly not in a way that would make one root for them), and one is just too frustrated by their very hasty and sometimes illogical decision making and inexperienced students-like behaviour (way too inexperienced to be doing something this advanced) to make one care for them.

Just as disappointing are the script and the direction. Anybody who remembers Ripley's taut, occasionally drolly humorous and emotionally weighty (in its exploration of loss and responsibility) script for 'Source Code' will be very disappointed to find a script here that makes one think whether it was actually written by him or a completely different person who was a complete rookie in script-writing. For this script was clunky, drab and tonally very muddled (trying to mix sci-fi, psychology and horror and making a complete hash of balancing them and properly doing anything with each individually) with some unintentionally funny elements.

Likewise it was hard to believe that such lazy ill-at ease came from the same director who brought so much tension, class, boldness and suspense in masterful, terrifying ways to the Swedish 'The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo'. Everything single one of those completely and utterly absent here in a film as chilling as a wet blanket. Sorry for comparing, but it's hard not to when the glimpses of potential that actually persuaded me to see a film that didn't appeal to me in the first place, based on previous work that did impress me, disappoint so drastically.

Worst of all is the story, which is a disaster in execution and does nothing fresh with an idea that was quite unique back in 1990 but not so much over-time and feels incredibly stale and unimaginative here. It started off mildly intriguing, quickly became dull once it was clear that the characters were not engaging and the script and direction being as poor as they were (not to mention the pacing being leaden throughout) and then got really weird and forgot to make sense in the second half. The film tries to raise interesting questions but fails to answer them convincingly so many things feel unresolved or very, very vague (like all the strange goings on, the whole flat-liners concept and the unexplained physical forms thing that is more at home in a Stephen King novel). The ending is a fizzling whimper, nothing exciting or suspenseful at all about it, and indicative of the writers running out of steam and ideas.

Forgot to mention the production values. Visually it was very close to looking like straight to video fodder but just rose above that (only just) with some atmospheric lighting that is wasted by especially photography that was suggestive of a photographer either drunk on the job or had never shot a film in their lives. When reading that it was the same man who captured the bleakness of 'The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo' effectively, lack of refinement aside, there was shock. Some slapdash effects here too. One actually misses the interesting use of orange and blues of the original, which was far more interesting to watch than the dreary look here. Nathan Barr has done some great scoring for television but it's very ham-fisted in the few times it's memorable here.

Overall, completely flat. 2/10 Bethany Cox

Flatliners is about a group of students who are not satisfied with their lives and thanks to the initiative of one of them (Ellen Page) they find something beyond comprehension that changes their perspectives about life. The plot itself: Promising.

The movie is half sci-fi, normal people trying to surpass the limit of science in a realistic way or at least tied to the ground which cannot be said about the other part, the horror one, where the movie takes another road, a supernatural one. But is interesting in it's on way and it's very well made, in my theater people were really scared. If you're willing to accept this two sides of the movie, you're enjoying it for sure.

The acting is good enough. Of course Ellen does a great job and the other actors did a good performance with what they were given.

So, why the bad reviews? Well, Flatliners doesn't have the best script and it has "teenager parts" but who wouldn't party after that? Anyway, this is not enough for so bad reviews. So, what is it? It's the comparison with the original one. Yes, in case you don't know, this movie is a remake of a 1990 movie. And what almost everyone is doing is comparing this new one with the oldest and it's tiring. What did I do up there? Analyze the movie I went to see to the cinema. And that's it. I don't know why they insist so much on talking about other movie.

Flatliners won't change your life but it's a good enough made movie, with good acting, good plot and an excellent combination of horror and sci-fi. Go see it, ignore the critics. You'll enjoy it.

My wife showed me a trailer to Flatliners 2017 and to be honest...I had NO idea they even made a re-make of the 1990's Flatliners. The trailer wasn't bad and we watched it. I like that it wasn't a total copy of the original, say like (Cough! Star Wars: The force awakens) I liked the film very much and as a horror fan, it had it's share of creepy/scary jump moments. The acting was great and all in all it was an enjoyable movie to watch. Hope this isn't a spoiler...but it's great that Kiefer Sutherland as included in the movie. I always like to see some of the original cast in a re-make. Watch it, people. It's good.

What started off as potentially a great film, suddenly turned into a complete boring mess. While going in a different direction to the 1990's version, I don't think the creators knew exactly what that direction was as it seemed to jump all over the place. While I giggled at certain ridiculous moments, the rest was spent thinking what exactly is going on? Ellen Page's performance was okay but I think the movie itself squashed what could have been a great acting role.

There's been this trend in recent years to remake iconic or at least popular movies from earlier years. For the most part these movies have been met with yawns, disinterest and have been rightfully savaged by the critics and viewers. Occasionally you get a good movie out of it but more often then not it's just a big, costly mistake. And so to get around this studios no longer refer to these movies as remakes, but "reimaginings". The idea is take the concept of the movie and and try different things. This still doesn't make it a good idea.

The 80's version of Flatliners was an interesting movie. The concept of a group of medical students flatlining and then coming back was original. It brought with it elements of horror, existentialism and how our choices can affect both ourselves and others.

This one? I struggled to find a positive to give to it and I still can't. This is a bad movie from every single point of view I can give. It follows the same story of a group of medical students who in effect kill themselves for a short period of time to see what's on the "other side". Then before brain damage can occur they are brought back but each brings back with them something from their past and they are in effect haunted by this.

It's really the same story as the original even if it's executed in a different way. There's nothing else that needs to be said. Same thing but worse.

Save your money and rent the original if you want to see this. You'll be happier and it won't cost you as much.

I think this movie was wrongly rated poorly. It starts with intrigue and thrilling scenarios of the medical students experimenting with death. It then changes to got jump scares and mysterious, spooky encounters. I saw the original decades ago so I don't remember it much. Watching this as it's own story, in the dark, proved entertaining and hair raising. Tip: Avoid reviews who's intent is to compare a reimagined movie to the original.

I didn't want any of these characters to get resuscitated.

I actually enjoyed this movie. I'm sad that there are such low scores. It's maybe not an award-winning movie, but it's enjoyable. People are so difficult these days. Make your own movies!

We thought it was decent, fun to watch. Could just be because we watched 'The Snowman' right before and that movie was god awful so anything after was going to be good.

Worth the watch imo.

The 1990 original ( original ? haha) was not as good as we think we remember.At a time when the cinema needs to refresh itself and stop reworking old stale ideas..we get this ...utterly pointless.

Bad screen writing here..less than 1 dimensional at best and the acting is pretty atrocious in all honesty. The first 5 minutes made me wonder if it was gonna be any good...I could not foresee a movie go downhill so quickly...the ending was so daft I could hear people saying "What"? in the theatre.

Not even the addition of Keifer Sutherland could make this any less silly. Direction was lame and lazy...I get the idea they thought they were going to cash in..I also get the idea they are very much mistaken.

Rush release on DVD I would think to cash in before people catch on how bad it is. The story is really , really silly with enough plot holes to take the wind out the story.

Bad at best gave it a 3 because I'm in a good mood.

I deserved what I got.

How many horror movie clichés can you pack into one movie? Let's find out.

I loved the original movie Flatliners. It's nice to see Kiefer Sutherland back in this version but it's in no way a sequel, he's a totally different character (who is not in this movie enough in my opinion) and this is a remake or re-imagining or however you want to label it.

This movie isn't bad but it's not very good either. It's just coasting off the original like so many remakes do in recent years. The original had an amazing cast and a lot of charm. It wasn't brilliant by any means but it was much more original and easier to buy into than this one.